Analysis reveals visual attention differences in aggressive children, suggesting potential biomarkers for aggression screening.
Atypical visual attention to aversive or threatening stimuli is a clinically relevant feature of aggressive behavior. However, the developmental dissociation between sustained visual allocation and early orienting remains unclear. This study examined the temporal dynamics of visual attentional biases in a sample of 119 children and adolescents (51 males, 68 females), clinically and behaviorally categorized into aggressive and non-aggressive cohorts. Using a free-viewing paradigm with standardized emotional stimulus pairs selected from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS), eye-tracking analysis focused on first-fixation direction and dwell time. Inferential analyses were conducted using Linear Mixed-Effect Models (LMM) and Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models (GLMM). The linear model revealed a significant main effect of behavioral condition: individuals with aggressive traits, regardless of their stage of development, showed greater sustained visual allocation toward negative stimuli. In contrast, the GLMM for first-fixation direction identified a significant age-by-condition interaction, indicating that early orienting differences were more clearly expressed in the aggressive adolescent cohort. These findings suggest that sustained visual preference for negative content may represent a relatively stable correlate of aggressive traits, whereas early orienting differences may vary across developmental stages. Together, these two temporal eye-tracking measures may provide complementary information for future computational approaches to aggression screening. In conclusion, these two temporal oculomotor dimensions may provide a useful feature space for future machine-learning pipelines and may serve as complementary candidate markers for comparing computational predictions against clinically established ground truth in aggression screening research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alvarado-Cando et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: